Buck v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 112
| Citation | 144 S.E.2d 34,265 N.C. 285 |
| Decision Date | 22 September 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 112,112 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Linda Faulkner BUCK, by her Next Friend, Elmer L. Faulkner, v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY. |
Gaylord & Singleton, Greenville, for plaintiff appellant.
M. E. Cavendish, Greenville, for defendant appellee.
Uninsured motorists coverage 'is designed to further close the gaps inherent in motor vehicle financial responsibility and compulsory insurance legislation.' 7 Am.Jur.2d, Automobile Insurance § 135, p. 460. It 'is intended, within fixed limits, to provide financial recompense to innocent persons who receive injuries, and the dependents of those who are killed, through the wrongful conduct of motorists who, because they are uninsured and not financially responsible, cannot be made to respond in damages.' Annotation: 79 A.L.R.2d 1252, 1252-53.
G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(3), in pertinent part, provides: 'No policy of bodily injury liability insurance, covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle, shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this State with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this State unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto, in limits for bodily injury or death set forth in subsection (c) of § 20-279.5, under provisions filed with and approved by the Insurance Commissioner, for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles and hit-and- run motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting therefrom.'
G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(3) was enacted as Chapter 640, Session Laws of 1961, entitled 'An Act to amend G.S. 20-279.21 defining motor vehicle liability insurance policy for financial responsibility purposes so as to include protection against uninsured motorists.' (Our italics.)
The quoted statutory provision uses but does not define the term 'uninsured motor vehicles.' The term 'uninsured automobile' is defined in the uninsured motorist endorsement attached to and an integral part of the automobile liability policy issued by defendant to plaintiff's father. The wording of the issue submitted by the parties as determinative implies agreement that the meaning of the term 'uninsured motor vehicle' as used in the quoted statutory provision and of the term 'uninsured automobile' as used in said policy endorsement is the same.
While the liability of Stackhouse, if any, was insured by a 'standard automobile liability insurance policy' issued to it, Stackhouse incurred no liability in connection with the operation of its truck on the occasion when plaintiff was injured. Since the truck was operated by Cowles 'without the permission, knowledge or consent' of Stackhouse, the Stackhouse policy was not 'applicable to the accident with respect to any person or organization legally responsible for the use' of the truck. Under the admitted and established facts, on the occasion of the collision Cowles was the only person legally responsible for the use of the Stackhouse truck. It is not contended that any automobile liability insurance policy applicable to the accident in which plaintiff was injured provides coverage for the liability of Cowles in connection therewith.
Admittedly, the automobile liability insurance policy issued to Stackhouse with reference to its truck complied with the requirements of G.S. § 20-279.21(a) and (b). However, the present action is on the contract between plaintiff's father and defendant, namely, the uninsured motorists endorsement, and decision herein depends upon the provisions of that contract and not upon those of the policy issued to Stackhouse.
Defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weingarten v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...& Casualty Co., 413 F.2d 539; First National Ins. Co. of America v. Devine, 211 So.2d 587, 589 (Fla.App.); Buck v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 265 N.C. 285, 144 S.E.2d 34; Touchette v. Northwestern Mutual Ins. Co., 80 Wash.2d 327, 332-33, 494 P.2d 479. Many jurisdictions make spe......
-
McClean v. Duke Univ.
...declare the intention of the legislature, and carry such intention into effect to the fullest degree." Buck v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 265 N.C. 285, 290, 144 S.E.2d 34, 37 (1965) (quoting 50 Am. Jur. Statutes § 223 ) (internal quotation marks omitted). This court first notes that it does......
-
State v. Jones
...and accordingly innovations not within the Assembly's intentions shall not be carried into effect. See Buck v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 265 N.C. 285, 290, 144 S.E.2d 34, 37 (1965); Price v. Edwards, 178 N.C. 493, 101 S.E. 33 (1919). As recently stated by another court, "[w]hile inventi......
-
Indiana Ins. Co. v. Noble, 569A84
...automobile with insured's consent against any injury caused by negligence of uninsured or unknown motorists. Buck v. United States F. & G. Co., 265 N.C. 285, 144 S.E.2d 34 (1965). Ins. Co. v. Kincaid, Fla.App., 199 So.2d 770 (1967); Stephens v. Allied Mutual Ins. Co., 182 Neb. 562, 156 N.W.......